We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Close

Items marked "not for resale" rules change proposal

JetpacJetpac

At the request of ASB i propose a change to the FS/FT guidelines which apparently prohibit items marked not for resale. (Thumbs up ASB)

As there is no reason or legal reason for this i propose that it be removed from the guidelines. If an item is owned by an individual, they own the item and have the rights to do as they wish with it (within legal bounds and copyright law)

Providing they do not breach other rules (there is a retail value etc) there is no reason they cannot be allowed, and also based on the current rules it also bans the sale of a large majority of DVDs and Games which are also adorned with "not for resale".

along the same lines this also puts several of the mods who have sold games on fs/ft in breach of the FS/FT rules themselves.

PROPOSED RULE CHANGE:

The issue lies within the prohibited items list:
*Items without an rrp, e.g. games marked as promo only or split bundles where no price comparison is valid.

This should be changed to:
*Items without an RRP or equivalent RRP, e.g a promotional items from a company not available for purchase. Items marked promotional or not for resale are permitted as long as they are identical to the retail counterpart aside from the packaging or text on the item.

All Comments (81)

Jump to unreadLocked
1
    whatsThePoint
    games and dvd's with "not for resale" have usually been given free or discounted price as part of a package
    trinaandlee
    The ps3 games i have are regular ps3 games and they have printed in small writing resale is prohibited without permission of scee . This is clearly on the game disk


    Edited By: trinaandlee on Dec 11, 2011 20:11
    Shengis
    Subbed. Can't see this ending well......
    oldmanhouse
    I agree with this. A "not for resale" game is always the full version of the game so could sell for the same as a normal copy would.. although I foresee them going for slightly less, if the change were to be made to the rules.
    boothy
    whats brought this on?
    richp
    richp2 years, 11 months ago #6Show comment tools Reply
    boothy
    whats brought this on?


    this thread here

    Edited By: richp on Dec 11, 2011 20:27
    melipona
    Can anybody think of another interpretation of "Not for Resale" other than it should not be resold and this was a condition of the original purchase?
    33342
    333422 years, 11 months ago #8Show comment tools Reply
    I don't see which rule it breaks anyway
    trinaandlee
    But other things have this on such as ps3 games which are happily sold everyday.

    Just what is the difference ?
    boothy
    spammed,one thread is enough
    winifer
    trinaandlee
    But other things have this on such as ps3 games which are happily sold everyday.

    Just what is the difference ?


    If thats the case how do Game and other places who sell pre-owned games get round buying prohibited items?
    Jetpac
    boothy
    spammed,one thread is enough


    Boothy the other was in misc.. not feedback.. dont go jobsworthing.
    Jetpac
    winifer


    If thats the case how do Game and other places who sell pre-owned games get round buying prohibited items?


    Because there are no legal stipulations.
    33342
    boothy
    spammed,one thread is enough


    ASB said to open this thread
    brilly
    Shengis
    richp
    boothy
    whats brought this on?


    this thread here

    Interesting thread. Total clown shoes.
    dunfyboy
    Shengis
    Interesting thread. Total clown shoes.

    Sums it up well.

    [img]http://i40.tinypic.com/kf5wtw.jpg[/img]
    lumoruk
    I say close the FS/FT thread in ASB's honour, he won't be happy till it is.
    thesaint
    I have just had a look at 3 PS3 games(Black Ops, FIFA 11 & Killzone 3) and they all say:
    "RESALE AND RENTAL ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY SCEE".

    I think ASB needs to have a rethink of this latest interpretation of HUKD's rules and guidelines.

    Edited to add: I just took a look at all my PS3 games, and they all say that on the back cover.

    Edited By: thesaint on Dec 12, 2011 08:19
    Jetpac
    thesaint
    I have just had a look at 3 PS3 games(Black Ops, FIFA 11 & Killzone 3) and they all say:
    "RESALE AND RENTAL ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY SCEE".

    I think ASB needs to have a rethink of this latest interpretation of HUKD's rules and guidelines.

    Edited to add: I just took a look at all my PS3 games, and they all say that on the back cover.


    PS3 games are ok because it only says not for resale in really small writing... apparently!!
    athunder
    what about used blu rays bought from blockbuster? they have a big "Rental only" on the cover, but they clearly sell them like this to customers, could i not then re-sell them now?

    Edited By: athunder on Dec 12, 2011 10:08
    Shengis
    dunfyboy
    Shengis
    Interesting thread. Total clown shoes.

    Sums it up well.

    http://i40.tinypic.com/kf5wtw.jpg

    I actually tried clicking that for some reason X) :{
    trinaandlee
    Seems strange how ex rental dvd's etc. can be sold on here when it clearly states this warning

    http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7132/1001796j.jpg



    Edited By: trinaandlee on Dec 12, 2011 16:20
    Jetpac
    trinaandlee
    Seems strange how ex rental dvd's etc. can be sold on here when it clearly states this warning

    http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7132/1001796j.jpg




    It is because there is no LEGAL reason they cannot be resold.
    Shengis
    Jetpac
    trinaandlee
    Seems strange how ex rental dvd's etc. can be sold on here when it clearly states this warning

    http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7132/1001796j.jpg




    It is because there is no LEGAL reason they cannot be resold.

    Well you're obviously wrong there or they wouldn't be on the 'prohibited' list........
    Jetpac
    Shengis

    Well you're obviously wrong there or they wouldn't be on the 'prohibited' list........


    ... no i'm not wrong... and that is the whole point behind proposing a rule change.
    Shengis
    Jetpac
    Shengis

    Well you're obviously wrong there or they wouldn't be on the 'prohibited' list........


    ... no i'm not wrong... and that is the whole point behind proposing a rule change.

    ASB says you're wrong.... G A M E O V E R !

    (_;)
    thesaint
    No comment from the HUKD staff?
    aScottishBloke
    thesaint
    No comment from the HUKD staff?


    Not yet. It's a member discussion requesting a rule change. It might sound a bit presumptuous if we engage too early.

    There's no change either (or proposed) with regards to the cds/dvds and games.
    33342
    aScottishBloke
    thesaint
    No comment from the HUKD staff?


    Not yet. It's a member discussion requesting a rule change. It might sound a bit presumptuous if we engage too early.

    There's no change either (or proposed) with regards to the cds/dvds and games.


    It wouldn't be a change though, you have stated items with 'not for resale' printed on the box aren't allowed to be sold, so therefore any game/cd/dvd with this on isn't allowed to be sold. If all ps3 games have it printed on the box then it follows the sale of those isn't allowed. Feel free to correct which part of that I didn't understand correctly.
    aScottishBloke
    Those are standard retail games/cds/dvds - There's no trading restriction applicable on those items.
    trinaandlee
    Can you please define exactly what is the differece between any item stating NOT FOR RESALE and why some are clearly allowed to be sold on here whilst others are not. What is the difference on the wording as surely not for resale must mean not for resale on anything ?

    All PS3 games state this ? EX rental dvds and blu-rays state this clearly on the printed outside cover ?

    One rule NOT FOR RESALE either ban these for breaking the not for resale rule or allow common sense on what is for resale and if an item is equivalent to a retail item but is in non retail packaging then surely it could be sold ?

    aScottishBloke
    Those are standard retail games/cds/dvds - There's no trading restriction applicable on those items.


    But ex rental are not standard dvd's\blu-rays

    Edited By: trinaandlee on Dec 13, 2011 15:17: info
    Shengis
    Inconsistent. The GHD's that started all this were standard retail but in a different box, nothing more nothing less.
    Jetpac
    This is why i have proposed the rule change in the OP... the wording may need some tweaking but the gist is there. It still keeps things without an RRP prohibited whilst letting the items that you should be able to sell without an issue in the ok list..

    I still have no idea why if you get things as part of a bundle you are not allowed to sell them if they are a retail or identical to retail.

    TBH the rules need a total revamp and loosening in a lot of ways, whilst tightening some others. If you look at the model on pretty much any other forum it works in a very logical way... but here the rules seem to be as obstructive as possible on a site that is supposed to be helpful... but thats another discussion

    Edited By: Jetpac on Dec 13, 2011 18:17
    Jetpac
    aScottishBloke
    Those are standard retail games/cds/dvds - There's no trading restriction applicable on those items.


    The GHDs were standard retail, but in a different box.. In EXACTLY the same way as buying a pair of GHDs second hand without the box would be.

    ASB it is an inconsistent ruling.. why can you not just accept that this was an error and notch it up to experience instead of stubbornly carrying on?

    It is obviously an area of the rules that is inconsistent and needs addressing, It is not about you, it is not even really about GHDs any more. It is about the scope and clarity of the current set of rules that make issues out of items that there should be no issues with.
    trinaandlee
    aScottishBloke
    Those are standard retail games/cds/dvds - There's no trading restriction applicable on those items.


    Ex rental movies have non retail artwork , Some also have future film adverisments before the films start , these are not present on retail movie discs .So no they are not retail


    Quote from my GHD thread

    aScottishBloke
    Items marked as not for resale cannot be listed within the trading forums.


    EX rental movies state this clearly on the box artwork , All PS3 games clearly state this on the disc . Seems like the statement you made is not being adhered to doesn't it ?



    Edited By: trinaandlee on Dec 13, 2011 21:43
    33342
    aScottishBloke
    Those are standard retail games/cds/dvds - There's no trading restriction applicable on those items.


    thats not what you said in the other thread, you specifically stated if something had not for resale on the box it wasn't allowed to be sold.

    http://www.hotukdeals.com/misc/warranty-replacement-white-box-goods-allowed-sold-here-1087667#post-comment

    Goods not permitted for resale will be pulled.


    If we have items marked as not for resale, they are pulled. We're consistent on that matter. We've pulled games/cds/dvds in the past for such a breach.


    Edited By: colinsunderland on Dec 13, 2011 23:51: x
    Jetpac
    Folks we are moving away from the point at hand which is a proposed changed to the wording of the prohibited items:

    *Items without an rrp, e.g. games marked as promo only or split bundles where no price comparison is valid.

    This should be changed to:

    *Items without an RRP or equivalent RRP, e.g a promotional items from a company not available for purchase. Items marked promotional or not for resale are permitted as long as they are identical to the retail counterpart with exceptions made for the packaging or text present on the item.

    Maybe adding in something along the lines of "which must be disclosed upon listing" or something similar so full disclosure IS a requirement.

    any advances or better wordings people can think up?



    Edited By: Jetpac on Dec 13, 2011 23:50
    dcx_badass
    Have we had clarification of what font size is required yet? What about italics, does italics make it invalid?
    trinaandlee
    dcx_badass
    Have we had clarification of what font size is required yet? What about italics, does italics make it invalid?


    This was sorted a few days ago. The only font which is required is the ASB font.

    I've looked for it on google and it seems it's a new unspecific font that can be altered at any given time.
    thegazman
    Nice to see the mods are replying to everyone's comments in this thread :|

    Edited By: thegazman on Dec 15, 2011 10:52
    Johnboy_1975
    Surely promo items should be allowed, especially if they are effectively the full item? The RRP would be the price of the full version, and then it would be up to the buyer and seller to determine what discount should be applied due to the promo packaging. You might as well ban refurbs because they come in a brown box oO



    After all, both the promo and the full version of PS3 discs are marked with "not for resale without SCEE express permission"

    Edited By: Johnboy_1975 on Dec 15, 2011 13:17
    Jetpac
    Folks please try and actually look at the changes proposed so that we can get the stupid rules changed rather than just pointing out grey areas, loopholes, inconsistencies etc that have already been discussed in the leading up to this thread.
    thesaint
    Jetpac
    Folks please try and actually look at the changes proposed so that we can get the stupid rules changed rather than just pointing out grey areas, loopholes, inconsistencies etc that have already been discussed in the leading up to this thread.


    I think it's one of those rules that won't be changed, but they simply won't be applied due to the inconsistency of them.
    Jetpac
    thesaint


    I think it's one of those rules that won't be changed, but they simply won't be applied due to the inconsistency of them.


    or rather suggestions are never listened to :P
    thegazman
    Still no word from a mod. This feedback section is marvellous (_;)
    trinaandlee
    It would be nice if a super moderator or admin would comment on the situation.
    thegazman
    trinaandlee
    It would be nice if a super moderator or admin would comment on the situation.


    Think the mods are spending all their time closing the David Villa leg break threads :p
    thesaint
    thegazman
    Still no word from a mod. This feedback section is marvellous (_;)


    ASB has replied.

    trinaandlee
    It would be nice if a super moderator or admin would comment on the situation.


    No helpers, mods, super mods or admin are likely to comment in this thread.
    thegazman
    thesaint
    thegazman
    Still no word from a mod. This feedback section is marvellous (_;)


    ASB has replied.

    trinaandlee
    It would be nice if a super moderator or admin would comment on the situation.


    No helpers, mods, super mods or admin are likely to comment in this thread.


    Not since the 13th. There has been a number of valid comments, that need some clarification, since then.
    thegazman
    Lets bump this thread up :)
    dunfyboy
    Worth another bump as Admin should change the rules to reflect Jetpac's suggestions in post 38 or come out with valid reasons why we shouldn't spam every game, dvd and blu ray FS/FT thread, not to mention Deal threads for the likes of That's Entertainment.
    fanpages
    dunfyboy
    Worth another bump as Admin should change the rules to reflect Jetpac's suggestions in post 38 or come out with valid reasons why we shouldn't spam every game, dvd and blu ray FS/FT thread, not to mention Deal threads for the likes of That's Entertainment.


    :)

    How about those that list "rare" video/computer games (or other media items, such as CDs, DVDs, & so on) that have long-since been discontinued from production & make an arbitrary assessment of their "worth"?

    If a potential buyer/trader has the full facts about an item (such as it being promotional/advance copy only, or provided in a pre-order bundle for a limited period, & so on) then it should be their decision what the "worth" of an item (to them) is.

    That is, if a seller lists a "promo" item or a "rare" item at, say, £30, & another member offers £5, then the member offering should not be hounded out of the thread for making a "low ball" offer (as I have seen previously).

    The value of items of this nature is very subjective.
    If members cannot offer what they feel is the value (to them) then others should not be able to list items that do not have a comparable "recommended retail price" (or recognised/accepted site where comparisons can be made) by simply making up a selling price.

    I appreciate that the listed price in a "For Sale / Trade" thread is often a "starting" price & negotiations bring this down, but the only true way to resolve the issue is to ban the sale of all items without a comparable "recommended"/"suggested" retail price.

    BFN,

    fp.
    dunfyboy
    Discontinued items shouldn't really be a problem. They would, once upon a time, have had an RRP and the "no profiteering" rule would set an upper limit to the asking price. Of course, the value of rare items can increase over time but if the seller wants more than RRP they will have to sell on ebay or provide proof that they paid more than RRP to get the item in the first place, such as happened after the HP Touchpad firesale.

    Promo and not for resale items are a little different. These rules are in place to stop people selling items they may have received as a freebie at work, for example, and therefore making a profit.
    There could be an argument that they should be permitted as long as the buyer is made aware that the item is a promo version and therefore, it's more than likely that the seller didn't pay anything for the item. The seller may have actually bought the item on ebay and be selling for less than they paid, similar to the Touchpads. Perhaps they should be allowed when someone has started a Wanted thread stating they'd be willing to accept both retail and promo versions.

    However, the fact remains that the item that started all this should not have been covered by these rules.

    For the benefit of anyone who hasn't read the original thread (link in post 6), the item in question was a set of hair straighteners that GHD sent to trinaandlee as a replacement. The problem was GHD sent them in a box marked not for resale. ASB ruled that this meant the sale thread broke HUKD rules, even though they were a warranty replacement for a retail item that trinaandlee paid good money for.

    It was pointed out that many items such as video games are marked not for resale without the permission of Sony etc. There was to-ing and fro-ing in which trinaandlee offered proof of RRP, original invoice from Amazon and returns info from GHD, ASB kept saying no, pretty much everyone in the thread said either ASB was in the wrong or the sale of games, CDs, DVDs etc should be banned.

    ASB locked the original thread, Jetpac set up this thread and nothing's happened to address the situation yet.

    Although Jetpac set up this thread looking for suggestions for a change in the wording, it's 2 months down the line so I think it's about time Admin got involved. He should come up with a suggested new wording for the site rules that would allow items such as trinaandlee's GHDs to be sold or admit all items marked not for resale are forbidden in FS/FT and in Deals (unless there's proof of the retailer's permission to resell goods). That would include all ex-rental discs with not for resale marked in the box and retail versions with not for resale marked on the disc.

    As for items without a comparable RRP, that should be up to the seller and buyer to negotiate between them.
    fanpages
    dunfyboy
    Discontinued items shouldn't really be a problem. They would, once upon a time, have had an RRP and the "no profiteering" rule would set an upper limit to the asking price. Of course, the value of rare items can increase over time but if the seller wants more than RRP they will have to sell on ebay or provide proof that they paid more than RRP to get the item in the first place, such as happened after the HP Touchpad firesale.


    It isn't just video/computer games where "retro" items out of publication/production are considered "collector's items" & typically exchange hands for far above their original recommended retail price, but this thread comes immediately to mind (due to my participation within it):

    "FS: Castlevania Symphony Of The Night PS1 RARE £42.00"

    However, I posted similar comments in another thread (that has since been removed) & another Moderator took a slightly different stance in that the seller could set a price way in excess of "reality" (market prices).

    I won't name that other staff member (out of courtesy) but it was somebody not commonly seen within the "For Sale / Trade" forum.

    dunfyboy
    Promo and not for resale items are a little different. These rules are in place to stop people selling items they may have received as a freebie at work, for example, and therefore making a profit.
    There could be an argument that they should be permitted as long as the buyer is made aware that the item is a promo version and therefore, it's more than likely that the seller didn't pay anything for the item. The seller may have actually bought the item on ebay and be selling for less than they paid, similar to the Touchpads. Perhaps they should be allowed when someone has started a Wanted thread stating they'd be willing to accept both retail and promo versions.


    PS. Also see: "Sale of 'Promotional' Goods"

    Additionally: "Why are 'helpers' exempt from following the FS/FT rules?"

    (Noting sigma's closing comment, #6)

    I agree a definitive "rule"/"guideline" is required & that is adhered to by both members & staff alike.

    BFN,

    fp.
    Jetpac
    unfortunately i dont think this will ever be resolved and the Mods will continue to interpret and apply the rules however they wish to and when called on it will fall behind the ambiguity of the rules citing previous examples where the rules have been interpreted or just BS their way through it.

    TBH I dont even know why... some of the rules are counter intuitive and everyone knows this including the mods, but yet they are still obtuse about them and modifications that need to be made
    dunfyboy
    I fear you're right Jetpac. Admin has had plenty of time to address this but nothing.

    Although it would be childish to suggest users report every FS thread that's selling goods marked not for resale and spam every Deal thread selling second hand goods marked not for resale without evidence of the company's right to do so, I fear it is only a matter of time until someone does this. There are quite a few disgruntled users around, whether because of their view on Mods being inconsistent, site redesign reducing usability or any other reasons.

    It would undoubtedly result in a suspension (even though in doing this they would be the only people on the site actually following the existing rules) but it may bring the matter to a head, and keep the Mods busy in the meantime.

    fanpages
    Additionally: "Why are 'helpers' exempt from following the FS/FT rules?"

    (Noting sigma's closing comment, #6)


    Do you mean this bit:
    sigma
    the contact link has been given re discussing specific reports that have previously been MOD reviewed and actioned

    I see no point in trying to contact the admin team using the Contact link at the bottom of the page. It's rare for anyone to ever receive a reply using this method unfortunately.

    Or this bit
    sigma
    (and because we aren't going to discuss report review findings relating to individual members on the public forums)

    Which I read as "ASB said no in the original thread so we're not going to say otherwise even though he was wrong".

    Or have I missed what you were pointing out?
    rufus bezak
    Seems a reasonable request for a rule change. It seems it is only applied arbitrarily to begin with anyways, and the examples shown of this arbitrary imposing of the rules shows quite clearly how ridiculous the rule is to begin with!

    Have any other requests to change the rules like this ever been honoured or even properly acknowledged and discussed by mods etc?

    Edited By: rufus bezak on Feb 15, 2012 20:43
    thesaint
    rufus bezak

    Have any other requests to change the rules like this ever been honoured or even properly acknowledged and discussed by mods etc?


    Yes lots.

    Every year or so, a mod will come and say they will do more to acknowledge members concerns etc.
    It lasts a month, and normal service resumes shortly after.

    This issue would involve a climb down, and that is not likely to happen.
    Saying that, it is a leap year.
    aScottishBloke
    We do listen to member concerns, and indeed many of the rule changes have taken into account suggestions made in Feedback.

    There's no intended inconsistency either, given the volume of trades, there's always the possibility of one or two decisions being interpreted that way. If that happens, rest assured, there's always a full response, nothing is deliberately ignored.


    I'm still not convinced there's an argument at present to permit items clearly marked as "Not for resale".

Post a Comment

No more comments can be posted to this thread.
I Approve
Your Comments On This Post
Comment Preview
Close

PRIVATE MESSAGE

Close
Sorry, you can’t currently send PMs. Once you’re a more active member of the forum, the PM service will be unlocked for you.
Welcome to HUKD!
Close
Join the Community